Bis is just one of many, including our president and every other leader (or even layman I've talked to in person) questioned on this matter, to refuse to define what they want. The only rational choice left is that they simply want them to pay more - no matter what they're paying now. It's not driven by logic and rationality, but by emotion.

I'm driven entirely by logic, not by emotion. It makes LOGICAL sense that those who earn more should pay more.

It would take a rather extensive fiscal and economic analysis to determine exactly what those numbers should be. However, my suggestion is to get rid of loop holes, deductions, and other nonsense in the tax code and turn it into straight line system based upon income brackets, i.e. if you make between $100,000 and $200,000 you pay X percentage, and there is no way for you to reduce this amount or get out of it, that's simply what you pay, period. The percentages would obviously increase as you get into higher income brackets, with the percentage for the very highest being correspondingly high, and the percentage being close to zero for those who make, say, less than $20,000 each year.

If I'm at the checkout in the grocery store, and the person in front of me pays $3.29 for a gallon of milk, yet I'm charged $3.99 for the same gallon of milk because I'm told that "you can afford it", is that fair?

We're talking about taxes here, not consumer commodities. Those are two very different things. If you don't understand that concept, it will be impossible for you to understand anything else we're discussing here (and I'm not going to bother taking the time to try to explain it if you don't get it).

If you earn it, and I don't.... you should be forced to give me some money. It's the liberal way.

First, I'm not a liberal. I actually think of myself as a moderate, but if anything, I tend to lean conservative.

Second, the concept of "earning" things is usually misstated. Most of those who "earn" higher incomes don't work any harder than many of those who "earn" lower incomes.

Third, it's not about giving others money. It's about paying what you should based upon your income.

We pay our taxes in order to fund the government. They're supposed to provide services, and NOT just hand the money to deadbeats.

The government DOES provide services, and some of those services are designed (as they should be) to help the less fortunate in society. Not everyone who uses these services is a "deadbeat"; in fact, many of them probably work a lot harder than those who make substantially more money.

it is not my job nor responsible to provide for the welfare of anyone but my family.

No, it isn't your job.

However, it IS the job of a responsible government in a civil society to ensure for the welfare of its citizens in general, and that includes providing for those who have little or no means to provide for themselves.

That means tax dollars do go (and rightfully so) to programs to provide for those who need them. Not all of these go to wonderful upstanding people, but then again, not all of those who make lots of money are wonderful upstanding people either.

Also, as I've said before, once you pay your taxes, it's not "your" money anymore - it's the government's money. If you have a problem with how the government spends it's money, take it up with them. Either complain and/or elect different officials who will do things differently. Don't take it out on those who are legally using programs designed to help them.

If I'm at the checkout in the grocery store, and the person in front of me pays $3.29 for a gallon of milk, yet I'm charged $3.99 for the same gallon of milk because I'm told that "you can afford it", is that fair?

We're talking about taxes here, not consumer commodities. Those are two very different things. If you don't understand that concept, it will be impossible for you to understand anything else we're discussing here (and I'm not going to bother taking the time to try to explain it if you don't get it).

Of course they are two different things. I understand that. But the underlying concept is the same. Person 1 pays "X" for something. Person 2 is expected to pay "X+Y" for the same something "because they can afford it".

Posted by bad_luck on 11/14/2012 11:28:00 AM (view original):For the most part, everyone does earn their living. But we've decided that when someone can't - because of age, disability, bad luck, etc. - we would rather they not starve.

Age... fine. Help the elderly.

Disability... fine. Help the disabled.

Bad luck? **** NO. That gives lazy people an excuse for their laziness.